Bill Bennett, cabinet minister in charge of Victoria's core review of government programs, has promised effective two-way communications on his plan to look at the Agricultural Land Reserve, but the reality has not lived up to that pledge, writes Sun political affairs columnist Vaughn Palmer.

Photograph by: NICK PROCAYLO
, PNG

VICTORIA — As cabinet minister for the core review of government programs, Bill Bennett knew very well he was inviting controversy when he announced that the targets would include that most sacred of cows, the Agricultural Land Reserve.

“We’re going to look at some sacrosanct things,” Bennett told The Vancouver Sun back in July, referencing the B.C. Liberal plan to review what should and should not remain unchanged as a part of the core of government.

“We’re going to look at the Agricultural Land Reserve and the Agricultural Land Commission,“ he said, by way of example. “There is certainly some potential here for some controversy. Nothing is off the table.”

Defenders of the province’s long-standing regime for protecting agricultural land were soon calling for public input into the review. And Bennett seemed to provide the opportunity Sept. 24, when he released details of the “bold approach” that the government would be taking:

“The public will have an opportunity to provide input to core review as part of the (legislature) committee on finance and government services’ budget consultations,” he announced. “Effective public and stakeholder communications will be an important element of our approach.”

Somewhat ironic, given that the aforementioned committee was already on the road with a pre-booked schedule of witnesses by the time Bennett got around to identifying its role in public consultations on the core review.

Still, two days later, representatives of the B.C. Food Systems Network showed up for the committee hearings in Victoria, saying they were there to present their concerns about the fate of agricultural land in light of it being included in the core review.

The pitch met with obvious bewilderment from the members of the committee, New Democrats and B.C. Liberals alike. Neither the terms of reference for the committee nor its two successful calls for public submissions had mentioned that it would be involved in the core review.

Where had the food services network gotten the notion that his committee was taking input on the core review? Advised that the source was minister Bennett, he replied:

“ I will check and see. I’m quite sure there are going to be lots of opportunity for input, but we’ll get back to you on that one, okay?”

Embarrassing. In addition to chairing the committee, Ashton is parliamentary secretary to Bennett, hence the other go-to guy for the core review. If he wasn’t in the loop, who was?

Nor did Ashton appear to have clarified much of anything by Tuesday of this week, when the committee descended on Trail, and another presenter opened with a lamentation about the likely impact of the core review on the ALR.

“I realize that your primary task is consultations on the budget,” said Abra Brynne, program manager with Food Secure Canada. “However, recently your mandate was expanded to include the core programs review, which I shall be addressing today.”

Hold on there, said chairman Ashton. “I just want to correct you on that. We are prepared to take input on that, but there is still some discussion that’s taking place on how that will be presented as the core service starts rolling ahead.”

Next day, the committee was in Nanaimo and the topic came up for a third time. Adam Olsen, interim leader of the B.C. Green party, had driven up island from his home on the Saanich peninsula, to ask the committee to sort out “some confusion that has ensued after a government press release sent out last week that identified this committee as the body responsible for accepting input for the government’s core review process.”

Ashton, finally, was able to clarify, having spoken to Bennett earlier that day. The core review was in the early stages, it would continue to the end of 2014, and there would be other opportunities for the public and stakeholders to have their say.

Meanwhile, the committee was also prepared to listen and incorporate any feedback into its report as well. So Olsen was free to “put the input.”

Which the Green leader proceeded to do, making the point that people concerned about the future of agricultural land were entitled to a proper consultation, not a rushed exercise in ad hockery: “The discussion about agriculture is far too important and complex, and this accelerated process is clearly insufficient.”

The New Democrats, through their critic for the core review, accused the Liberals of giving people the runaround. “The work of the finance committee is more than half done, so lots of people have missed the opportunity,” MLA Shane Simpson told me during an interview Thursday on Voice of B.C. on Shaw TV. “There’s nothing inherently wrong with a core review — but you have to do it right.”

Ashton, in a brief telephone interview Friday, took the blame for the botch-up with the committee. He was on the road when Bennett’s news release first went out and regrets rebuffing any of the presenters. He also repeated assurances that there will be “ample opportunities” for folks to have their say in the core review.

But if the government is going to live up to Bennett’s promise of effective two-way communications with the public, those opportunities have to consist of much more than a grudging invitation to “put the input.”

Story Tools

Bill Bennett, cabinet minister in charge of Victoria's core review of government programs, has promised effective two-way communications on his plan to look at the Agricultural Land Reserve, but the reality has not lived up to that pledge, writes Sun political affairs columnist Vaughn Palmer.

We encourage all readers to share their views on our articles and blog posts. We are committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion, so we ask you to avoid personal attacks, and please keep your comments relevant and respectful. If you encounter a comment that is abusive, click the "X" in the upper right corner of the comment box to report spam or abuse. We are using Facebook commenting. Visit our FAQ page for more information.

Almost Done!

Postmedia wants to improve your reading experience as well as share the best deals and promotions from our advertisers with you. The information below will be used to optimize the content and make ads across the network more relevant to you. You can always change the information you share with us by editing your profile.

By clicking "Create Account", I hearby grant permission to Postmedia to use my account information to create my account.

I also accept and agree to be bound by Postmedia's Terms and Conditions with respect to my use of the Site and I have read and understand Postmedia's Privacy Statement. I consent to the collection, use, maintenance, and disclosure of my information in accordance with the Postmedia's Privacy Policy.

Postmedia wants to improve your reading experience as well as share the best deals and promotions from our advertisers with you. The information below will be used to optimize the content and make ads across the network more relevant to you. You can always change the information you share with us by editing your profile.

By clicking "Create Account", I hearby grant permission to Postmedia to use my account information to create my account.

I also accept and agree to be bound by Postmedia's Terms and Conditions with respect to my use of the Site and I have read and understand Postmedia's Privacy Statement. I consent to the collection, use, maintenance, and disclosure of my information in accordance with the Postmedia's Privacy Policy.